Judge blesses teaching students homosexuality is innate

The Montgomery County school board includes Nancy Navarro, Ben Moskowitz, Shirley Brandman, Jerry D. Weast, Stephen Abrams, Christopher S. Barclay, Sharon W. Cox, Judy Docca and Patricia O'Neill

A member of the school board in Montgomery County, Md., which has been working for years to overcome obstacles to its program that teaches students homosexuality is innate, has told members of a group objecting to the lessons to go away.

"To the other side, I say get out of town, shut up, quit costing Montgomery County taxpayers money for litigation, and we're right and parents believe we're right," board member Pat O'Neill said in a report in the Portland, Ore., Examiner.

Her demands followed a ruling from Maryland Circuit Court Judge William J. Rowan III that it is permissible for the district to teach students in Montgomery County how to use condoms during anal and oral sex, as well as that homosexuality is inborn, even though just a year ago Maryland's highest appellate court found there is no scientific basis for such a conclusion.

Lawyers with the the Thomas More Law Center, whose work is funded by donations, represented a group of citizens and several organizations opposed to teaching "facts" to students that do not have a foundation in facts.

The law firm said the curriculum was adopted as a result of a campaign by homosexual advocacy groups, and, at least until a decision would be made in an expected appeal, will teach that homosexuals are "born that way," even though that theory has been rejected by Maryland's courts.

That decision came in an opinion in a 2007 civil union case, and held that the proposition that homosexuality is innate is not supported by credible evidence.

"In fact, not one U.S. court presented with the issue has found homosexuality to be an innate characteristic," the law firm said.

"Judge Rowan's ruling gives a green light to homosexual groups throughout Maryland to pressure school boards to adopt similar policies," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center.

"We will be meeting with our clients next week regarding an appeal," he said.

The law firm represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, the Family Leader Network, and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays in the dispute.

Nearly 300 Montgomery area doctors also had signed a petition objecting to the curriculum that promotes the notion that the use of condoms prevents disease in anal intercourse.

But educators in the Montgomery district dismissed all complaints and concerns over the promotion of anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism.

The Examiner report said the decision "ends" the dispute, even though no decision had been made on an appeal. Then O'Neill sounded off about the concerned parents.

"I'm thrilled. I saw yes to Judge Rowan," she said. "And to the other side, I say get out of town…"

School officials told the newspaper the district had spent more than $500,000 in taxpayer funds to pursue legitimacy for its sex agenda.

The foundational concept in the teachings that homosexuality is innate, and a series of discussions regarding "certain types of intercourse in detail" raised objections from those who sought a factual foundation for the teaching, as well as compliance with state law banning the instruction of "erotic techniques."

Brandon Bolling, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who argued the case, said, "Maryland law says that you have to teach something that is factually accurate. They are not doing that, therefore it is illegal."

Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, told WND she will recommend pursuing an appeal.

"I would like to know how this judge can overrule the state appellate court," she said.

"Declaring homosexuality to be 'innate' is a direct attack upon the ex-gay community and the possibility of changing one's sexual orientation," said Peter Sprigg, a Montgomery County resident and board member for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. He also served on the Citizens Advisory Committee that reviewed the curriculum.

"This statement was inserted into the curriculum at the last minute and was never reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. It also directly contradicts the statement elsewhere in the curriculum that 'sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors,'" he said.

Bolling said the Maryland State Board of Education had abdicated its responsibility by allowing Montgomery County arbitrarily to decide that classroom discussions of oral and anal intercourse did not violate a state law against discussions of such "erotic" techniques. The judge said in his decision he deferred to that board.

Montgomery County school officials also have complained that any criticism of the curriculum "intrudes" into their right to teach children.

The school system launched its work on the highly explicit sex curriculum six years ago, and it earlier was struck down by a federal judge because of its content that condemned religious perspectives that did not endorse homosexuality. The newest challenge is an edited version of the curriculum that still includes elements to which parents have objected, such as the statement that being "gay" is a natural trait that people have at birth.

According to a blog on Montgomery County school issues, the court ruling "quoted laws from every state in the union except Massachusetts to support its finding that no gay gene exists."

"Don't forget, the sex ed curriculum does not discuss families (although the curriculum is called Family Life) spends much time pushing the gay agenda and directs students to chop off body parts and change their gender," the commentary said.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators have promoted a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

California's legislature also approved a new law that will ban the use of any words or terms that can be perceived as derogatory to homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders and those with other alternative lifestyles.

WND also covered the issue when officials in Boulder, Colo., held a seminar for students in which they were told to "have sex," including same-sex experiences, and "take drugs."

Another school event promoted homosexuality to students while banning parents, and at still another, WND reported school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.